Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI and Elon Musk

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#22

Post by grecy »

ipsum2 wrote: post #10
nodesocket wrote: post #5

Seems pretty straightforward... Elon invested when they claimed to be an open-source non-profit, and clearly now are closed source and very for profit. The notion that the for profit is just a temporary means to achieve scale goals is laughable.

It's probably worth reading the post, which refutes these points.

It does not refute them in any way. It very openly admits them while (trying to) justify them.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#24

Post by idatum »

Reubend wrote: post #13

Their evidence does a nice job of making Musk seem duplicitous, but it doesn't really refute any of his core assertions: they still have the appearance of abandoning their core mission to focus more on profits, even if they've elaborated a decent justification of why that's necessary to do. Or to put it more simply: here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betra…

> We realized building AGI will require far more resources than we’d initially imagined

So the AGI existential threat to humanity has diminished?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#28

Post by baking »

> Elon said we should announce an initial $1B funding commitment to OpenAI. In total, the non-profit has raised less than $45M from Elon and more than $90M from other donors.

This is not reflected in their 990's. They claim $20 million in public support and $70 million in "other income" which is missing the required explanation.

Also, why are none of the current board members of OpenAI included as authors here? Is there a problem in the governance structure?

Elon could not legally contribute more than he did without turning OpenAI into a private foundation. Private foundations are required to give away 5% of their total assets annually and are not permitted to own substantial stakes in for-profit businesses.

Showing old emails from people who clearly don't understand what they are getting into is not very helpful to their case. Maybe if they had talked to a lawyer who understood non-profit law, or even just googled it.

If the $70 million was in fact a donation instead of income, they fail the public support test and are de facto a private foundation.

Post reply on HN